The Intelligent & Relentless Pursuit of Muscle™
Politics and World Issues
 
Marriage is NOT About Two People Loving Each Other
 

CrewPierce
Level 5

Join date: Nov 2005
Posts: 3979

pushharder wrote:
CrewPierce wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Grneyes wrote:

So....who would be?...



Being a serious credible leftie takes some seriously hard work. Of course I'm biased but I pity the person that is compelled to justify much of the rubbish that comes from the left wing. So much of it IS fundamentally flawed, inherently weak and historically proven inept.

In a way I and other "righties" have such a huge initial advantage it's almost unfair; it's kinda like a 245 lbs heavyweight boxer getting in the ring with a featherweight. The little guy may be a superb fighting specimen with oodles of technical experience but the big guy is going to almost effortlessly win every time.


lol a right wing swinger, the thought makes me laugh every time :)


LOL at a guy who laughingly ("every time") and ignorantly, implicitly insists a swinger cannot, or should not, lean right on political and social issues. I have many friends who swing, the vast majority of them lean right. You wouldn't necessarily know this and that's understandable. But you would do well to reserve your ridicule for a subject in which you're somewhat well versed. When an ignorant man wades into a discussion like this one it's like the guy who wanders into a room, farts, and then leaves.

Now having said that, I have swung and I do not swing. Whether I did or do either does not discredit the ideas I espouse.

You however have revealed yourself as a weak, or rather non-existent, debater possessing a weak intellect capable of only popping into a thread to LOL.

Wow push in a bad mood yesterday?

When was I attacking your lifestyle or said you couldn't be a conservative?

I was merely saying it's a bit of a ironic situation, much like a gay republican. A gay man can certainly have conservative financial views and thus vote Republican, just ironic that he would side with the same people who say that he can't get married.

Now remove your balls from the vice and calm down...damn

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

therajraj
Level 1

Join date: Dec 2008
Posts: 11050

SexMachine wrote:
Look at the phoney accusations he leveled against TB.


Yes. That was a knee jerk reaction to his initially aggressive comments.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

therajraj
Level 1

Join date: Dec 2008
Posts: 11050

Mr. Chen wrote:

As well they should. Just as they preach on adultery, or stealing, or LYING .


Why? Because you find it icky?

Mr. Chen wrote:

It actually works this way- Some in America think gay is gross, from a purely natural perspective, your pseudo-scientific arguments aside.


Yes, it's natural for a heterosexual male to find gay acts repulsive. I agree. Here's the thing, if you aren't working under the presupposition that it will send you to hell, you can see no one is being harmed in these acts and that it occurs regularly in nature.

There are certain sex acts that heterosexual couples partake in that I find repulsive, but I do not think they are wrong.


Mr. Chen wrote:

We Christians also know why its gross, and that God describes it as sin. It's been that why in the US for DECADES.


Contrary to popular belief, the age of idea doesn't give it merit.

Mr. Chen wrote:
For many of us, anti-gay=normal.


Glad you admit you're anti-gay.

Mr. Chen wrote:

The homoevangelists have been more and more boisterous of late, and those with the opposite view on it are going to answer.

So you see, it's the gays that are contributing to anti-gay culture. If the homoevangelists would quit banging the gong, ordinary people wouldn't get so irritated.


If the Christian evangelists would stop fighting gay rights, there would be no need for "homoevangelists."

Furthermore, these issues exist outside of the US and the muslim world. For instance in Trinidad and Tobago, you will get several years in jail for engaging in homosexual activity. I know you're "anti-gay" but some of us think this is wrong.

: You share the world with OTHER PEOPLE. People much different than you. Don't forget that.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

visiualizeme
Level

Join date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1

Response to Grneyes:

If he was that concerned than he wouldn't have allowed people to BE GAY! If being gay was so bad, they wouldn't be around, now would they? If they are such an abomination, why hasn't your God struck them down, committed GENOCIDE? Oh wait, because it's GENETIC! And STRAIGHT people give birth to GAY people! Shut your hole and go back to being a lurker.

Peace be on you - I usually don't get in to arguments but I do like to give statements to initiate/stimulate thinking. Now, God did strike them as the famous accounts in many religious scriptures.God could struck them down again, every single homo, in a matter of micro seconds but then wouldn't that become too obvious and would everyone start believing in God?

See everything worth achieving is difficult and therefore if we want eternal life of pleasure and comfort we have find God and believe in him with our intellectual rational that God has blessed us with. If gays were natural/biological then God would have given them equal opportunities to have kids and have a normal family like a man and a woman will have.

I know there have been several studies show some sort of relationship between genetics and homosexuality but there has been no significant proof and as all the people who believe in God believe, it will never happen. I guess if we can't find an answer to this by rational thinking then we just have to wait till the day we will all be resurrected.

Also, Since the appearance of the Last and Final Messenger Prophet Muhammad God has left these matters to be finalized on the day of judgement. He has sent down all the message and clues to us through His messenger and given us a deadline till the day of judgement. All the reckoning and accountability, rewards and punishment will be given on that day.

May God guide us all to the Truth.
TC of yourself

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

thunderbolt23
Level

Join date: Mar 2003
Posts: 8162

SexMachine wrote:

Give it to raj. He put a lot more effort into earning it here today. He's also a twisting, unscrupulous little ideologue. Look at the phoney accusations he leveled against TB.


Yes, indeed. I call someone "dumb", and suddenly our PWI PollyAnnas have to retire to their fainting room over the level of unkind discourse....

...but Rajraj accuses me of actually taking delight in talk of murdering children that were determined to be gay, and....crickets chirping.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Tiribulus
Level 1

Join date: Aug 2006
Posts: 16196

thunderbolt23 wrote:<<< ...but Rajraj accuses me of actually taking delight in talk of murdering children that were determined to be gay, and....crickets chirping.
I'm not as young as I used to be, but I'm pretty sure I remember his calling you "thunderdolt" being what prompted my comment. Hey look. There it is on the previous page =]

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

thunderbolt23
Level

Join date: Mar 2003
Posts: 8162

Tiribulus wrote:

I'm not as young as I used to be, but I'm pretty sure I remember his calling you "thunderdolt" being what prompted my comment. Hey look. There it is on the previous page =]


Well, your eyes are still young and sharp, that's for sure - I never noticed that. Nice catch.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Dr.Matt581
Level 1

Join date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1290

CrewPierce wrote:
pushharder wrote:
CrewPierce wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Grneyes wrote:

So....who would be?...



Being a serious credible leftie takes some seriously hard work. Of course I'm biased but I pity the person that is compelled to justify much of the rubbish that comes from the left wing. So much of it IS fundamentally flawed, inherently weak and historically proven inept.

In a way I and other "righties" have such a huge initial advantage it's almost unfair; it's kinda like a 245 lbs heavyweight boxer getting in the ring with a featherweight. The little guy may be a superb fighting specimen with oodles of technical experience but the big guy is going to almost effortlessly win every time.


lol a right wing swinger, the thought makes me laugh every time :)


LOL at a guy who laughingly ("every time") and ignorantly, implicitly insists a swinger cannot, or should not, lean right on political and social issues. I have many friends who swing, the vast majority of them lean right. You wouldn't necessarily know this and that's understandable. But you would do well to reserve your ridicule for a subject in which you're somewhat well versed. When an ignorant man wades into a discussion like this one it's like the guy who wanders into a room, farts, and then leaves.

Now having said that, I have swung and I do not swing. Whether I did or do either does not discredit the ideas I espouse.

You however have revealed yourself as a weak, or rather non-existent, debater possessing a weak intellect capable of only popping into a thread to LOL.

Wow push in a bad mood yesterday?

When was I attacking your lifestyle or said you couldn't be a conservative?

I was merely saying it's a bit of a ironic situation, much like a gay republican. A gay man can certainly have conservative financial views and thus vote Republican, just ironic that he would side with the same people who say that he can't get married.

Now remove your balls from the vice and calm down...damn


It really is simply a matter of deciding what is more important: being able to get married and have all the rights associated with that or economic improvement. National debt is a major concern and the Obama administration has been pretty ineffective about doing anything useful about it. Take me for example: I support gay marriage and am pretty socially liberal, but I tend to vote republican because I also support things like small government and I consider their economic and spending policies better. Also taxes, I pay way too much in taxes and would like that to change ASAP, and these things are more important to me. Is it unfair? Yes, absolutely, but that is life.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

CrewPierce
Level 5

Join date: Nov 2005
Posts: 3979

Dr.Matt581 wrote:
CrewPierce wrote:
pushharder wrote:
CrewPierce wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Grneyes wrote:

So....who would be?...



Being a serious credible leftie takes some seriously hard work. Of course I'm biased but I pity the person that is compelled to justify much of the rubbish that comes from the left wing. So much of it IS fundamentally flawed, inherently weak and historically proven inept.

In a way I and other "righties" have such a huge initial advantage it's almost unfair; it's kinda like a 245 lbs heavyweight boxer getting in the ring with a featherweight. The little guy may be a superb fighting specimen with oodles of technical experience but the big guy is going to almost effortlessly win every time.


lol a right wing swinger, the thought makes me laugh every time :)


LOL at a guy who laughingly ("every time") and ignorantly, implicitly insists a swinger cannot, or should not, lean right on political and social issues. I have many friends who swing, the vast majority of them lean right. You wouldn't necessarily know this and that's understandable. But you would do well to reserve your ridicule for a subject in which you're somewhat well versed. When an ignorant man wades into a discussion like this one it's like the guy who wanders into a room, farts, and then leaves.

Now having said that, I have swung and I do not swing. Whether I did or do either does not discredit the ideas I espouse.

You however have revealed yourself as a weak, or rather non-existent, debater possessing a weak intellect capable of only popping into a thread to LOL.

Wow push in a bad mood yesterday?

When was I attacking your lifestyle or said you couldn't be a conservative?

I was merely saying it's a bit of a ironic situation, much like a gay republican. A gay man can certainly have conservative financial views and thus vote Republican, just ironic that he would side with the same people who say that he can't get married.

Now remove your balls from the vice and calm down...damn


It really is simply a matter of deciding what is more important: being able to get married and have all the rights associated with that or economic improvement. National debt is a major concern and the Obama administration has been pretty ineffective about doing anything useful about it. Take me for example: I support gay marriage and am pretty socially liberal, but I tend to vote republican because I also support things like small government and I consider their economic and spending policies better. Also taxes, I pay way too much in taxes and would like that to change ASAP, and these things are more important to me. Is it unfair? Yes, absolutely, but that is life.

I agree with you on just about everything and that is why I am a ticket splitter, I vote for the candidate who most closely aligns with how I think, regardless of political party.

With the taxes though, having working for a German company before I'll take our taxes over theirs any day of the week so I don't complain!

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Dr.Matt581
Level 1

Join date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1290

CrewPierce wrote:

I agree with you on just about everything and that is why I am a ticket splitter, I vote for the candidate who most closely aligns with how I think, regardless of political party.

With the taxes though, having working for a German company before I'll take our taxes over theirs any day of the week so I don't complain!


I am from Russia, so I know taxes aren't that bad for most in the US compared to other places, but I am in the highest tax bracket so I definitely feel the sting.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Grneyes
Level 3

Join date: May 2009
Posts: 8043

pushharder wrote:
Grneyes wrote:

So....who would be?...



Being a serious credible leftie takes some seriously hard work. Of course I'm biased but I pity the person that is compelled to justify much of the rubbish that comes from the left wing. So much of it IS fundamentally flawed, inherently weak and historically proven inept.

In a way I and other "righties" have such a huge initial advantage it's almost unfair; it's kinda like a 245 lbs heavyweight boxer getting in the ring with a featherweight. The little guy may be a superb fighting specimen with oodles of technical experience but the big guy is going to almost effortlessly win every time.



I have to disagree with this because both sides are flawed, that's why they balance each other out. I believe in gay marriage, which you know, and it has been posited that legalizing it will open a slippery slope to polygamy, etc. I think the right would make sure that not happen. of course they won't let gay marriage happen anyway, but IF it did, I think people on the right would stop the slippery slope as well as people's own moral codes. There are some things that people on both sides agree on that are inherently, morally wrong.

I'm not saying what I want to say very clearly, but I hope the gist of it is conveyed.

I also don't think my thinking is flawed. I think I am very logical in my beliefs and morals.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Dr.Matt581
Level 1

Join date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1290

Grneyes wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Grneyes wrote:

So....who would be?...



Being a serious credible leftie takes some seriously hard work. Of course I'm biased but I pity the person that is compelled to justify much of the rubbish that comes from the left wing. So much of it IS fundamentally flawed, inherently weak and historically proven inept.

In a way I and other "righties" have such a huge initial advantage it's almost unfair; it's kinda like a 245 lbs heavyweight boxer getting in the ring with a featherweight. The little guy may be a superb fighting specimen with oodles of technical experience but the big guy is going to almost effortlessly win every time.



I have to disagree with this because both sides are flawed, that's why they balance each other out. I believe in gay marriage, which you know, and it has been posited that legalizing it will open a slippery slope to polygamy, etc. I think the right would make sure that not happen. of course they won't let gay marriage happen anyway, but IF it did, I think people on the right would stop the slippery slope as well as people's own moral codes. There are some things that people on both sides agree on that are inherently, morally wrong.

I'm not saying what I want to say very clearly, but I hope the gist of it is conveyed.

I also don't think my thinking is flawed. I think I am very logical in my beliefs and morals.


Are you trying to say that you don't think there is a valid "slippery slope" argument to be made because polygamous marriage and other such unions can and should be debated and decided based on their own merits instead of just whether or not gay people can get married? If so, then I agree with you. Mainly because there are already groups that are fighting to legalize polygamy and other such things. Also, if the slippery slope argument is valid, then no one should ever be granted any rights because then someone else who may or may not deserve those rights could decide they want them and fight for them.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

pushharder
Level 5

Join date: Apr 2005
Posts: 38176

Grneyes wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Grneyes wrote:

So....who would be?...



Being a serious credible leftie takes some seriously hard work. Of course I'm biased but I pity the person that is compelled to justify much of the rubbish that comes from the left wing. So much of it IS fundamentally flawed, inherently weak and historically proven inept.

In a way I and other "righties" have such a huge initial advantage it's almost unfair; it's kinda like a 245 lbs heavyweight boxer getting in the ring with a featherweight. The little guy may be a superb fighting specimen with oodles of technical experience but the big guy is going to almost effortlessly win every time.



I have to disagree with this because both sides are flawed, that's why they balance each other out. I believe in gay marriage, which you know, and it has been posited that legalizing it will open a slippery slope to polygamy, etc. I think the right would make sure that not happen. of course they won't let gay marriage happen anyway, but IF it did, I think people on the right would stop the slippery slope as well as people's own moral codes. There are some things that people on both sides agree on that are inherently, morally wrong.

I'm not saying what I want to say very clearly, but I hope the gist of it is conveyed.

I also don't think my thinking is flawed. I think I am very logical in my beliefs and morals.


I was speaking generally.

However, to address your specific point the right may very well not be able to keep a progressive judge from legalizing polygamy.

On another point, both sides aren't necessarily flawed, only the "wrong" side on a particular issue.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

pushharder
Level 5

Join date: Apr 2005
Posts: 38176

Just so two ^ know, I'm not getting drawn into a gay marriage debate. It's been done before and I have participated somewhat extensively elsewhere.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Brother Chris
Level 2

Join date: May 2005
Posts: 17056

therajraj wrote:
*Yawn*

Let's talk about this instead:





Christians begin to rage.


So, someone bullies a priest. *claps* So, tolerant.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Brother Chris
Level 2

Join date: May 2005
Posts: 17056

want2getlean wrote:
Sloth wrote:
it won't mean jack to the non-Christian.


Actually, there are many pro-gay marriage Christians.
The only people against it are backwards minded uneducated hick bigots, christian or not.


Oh yay!! Name calling, that was what 8 posts in?

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Brother Chris
Level 2

Join date: May 2005
Posts: 17056

sufiandy wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Grneyes wrote:

...Shut your hole and go back to being a lurker.


CONFORM OR GTFO?


You keep saying stuff like this, is conforming a good thing to you?


Cereal?

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

therajraj
Level 1

Join date: Dec 2008
Posts: 11050

pushharder wrote:

However, to address your specific point the right may very well not be able to keep a progressive judge from legalizing polygamy.


Greynes,

In case you're wondering how people who support gay marriage would respond, The answer is very simple.


We allow people to own handguns, rifles and semi-automatics, but we don't allow them to own automatic weapons or nuclear weapons. We CAN make an arbitrary stopping point. The slippery slope argument FAILS because we can decide this is the limit. And every time you want to move the line, a new debate must take place.

The real question is where do we set the limit to encourage everyone else's freedom and rights? In my opinion that line is drawn at two consenting adults who want to tether their lives together regardless of their sex. If they agree to enter a contract to attain certain benefits, that's good enough for me. Denying that right to someone who chooses a person of the "wrong" gender is an injustice that needs to be corrected.

Lastly, the way marriage is setup currently, laws surrounding marriage can be easily adapted around two people regardless of sex. If marriages of 3, 5 or 7 people were to take place, many laws would have to change and you would literally have to overhaul the whole thing. Can you imagine a divorce proceeding where 2 people in a polygamous marriage of 7 want out? On Impracticality alone we can draw an argument that marriage should stay between two people.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

therajraj
Level 1

Join date: Dec 2008
Posts: 11050

Brother Chris wrote:
therajraj wrote:
*Yawn*

Let's talk about this instead:





Christians begin to rage.


So, someone bullies a priest. *claps* So, tolerant.


Yeah he's an idiot.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Grneyes
Level 3

Join date: May 2009
Posts: 8043

pushharder wrote:
Just so two ^ know, I'm not getting drawn into a gay marriage debate. It's been done before and I have participated somewhat extensively elsewhere.


And I wasn't trying to either. I was just using it as an example of an issue where you and I disagree. :)

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

orion
Level 5

Join date: Jun 2005
Posts: 24891

therajraj wrote:


Yes, it's natural for a heterosexual male to find gay acts repulsive.



Is it?

Yall should learn not to give a fuck.

That is a very useful skill if you can master it.

Pot does help of course.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

qsar
Level 1

Join date: Nov 2011
Posts: 172

I don't think this has been discussed, but forgive me if it has...
What about the libertarian view on this? I think marriage should not be a government institution at all. Why is the government defining marriage? Why do I have to tell the government and get its permission to shack up with someone? What did people before it was part of the government? Where they not married? The government shouldn't be in the middle of this.

If you're Christian, go have your Christian wedding at a church. If you're Jewish, go have it at Temple. If you're atheist, go have it wherever you want. The government should be involved. You can do power of attorney and other social contracts such as prenups to cover the legal aspects of it. The beauty of this is, anyone can create a contract with anyone, and no one cares! It just has to pass contract law.

The government already infiltrates our lives through many means. If we as people can choose one thing in life, one thing that no one can intrude on, one thing the government should not touch, wouldn't that be love? Somehow that one thing has not only been made part of the system, and not only does everyone accept it mindlessly and sheepleshly, but people actually defend it vehemently to remain government regulated!!!

It is mind-boggling to me. Girls don't feel they are "married" unless the government gives them their blessing. It is insane. Girl says, "yes, I want you in me, but the government hasn't given us the ok yet". Sounds like a horror sci-fi big-brother scenario. I'm sorry but I rage every time this topic comes up. I'm amazed at how people are such lambs about such important matters.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

sufiandy
Level 1

Join date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2878

qsar wrote:
I don't think this has been discussed, but forgive me if it has...
What about the libertarian view on this? I think marriage should not be a government institution at all. Why is the government defining marriage? Why do I have to tell the government and get its permission to shack up with someone? What did people before it was part of the government? Where they not married? The government shouldn't be in the middle of this.

If you're Christian, go have your Christian wedding at a church. If you're Jewish, go have it at Temple. If you're atheist, go have it wherever you want. The government should be involved. You can do power of attorney and other social contracts such as prenups to cover the legal aspects of it. The beauty of this is, anyone can create a contract with anyone, and no one cares! It just has to pass contract law.

The government already infiltrates our lives through many means. If we as people can choose one thing in life, one thing that no one can intrude on, one thing the government should not touch, wouldn't that be love? Somehow that one thing has not only been made part of the system, and not only does everyone accept it mindlessly and sheepleshly, but people actually defend it vehemently to remain government regulated!!!

It is mind-boggling to me. Girls don't feel they are "married" unless the government gives them their blessing. It is insane. Girl says, "yes, I want you in me, but the government hasn't given us the ok yet". Sounds like a horror sci-fi big-brother scenario. I'm sorry but I rage every time this topic comes up. I'm amazed at how people are such lambs about such important matters.


I would be okay with all of this. Most people here are not the ones you need to convince though. It is the girls you mentioned, good luck with that.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Sloth
Level

Join date: Dec 2002
Posts: 13663

qsar wrote:
I don't think this has been discussed, but forgive me if it has...
What about the libertarian view on this? I think marriage should not be a government institution at all. Why is the government defining marriage? Why do I have to tell the government and get its permission to shack up with someone? What did people before it was part of the government? Where they not married? The government shouldn't be in the middle of this.

If you're Christian, go have your Christian wedding at a church. If you're Jewish, go have it at Temple. If you're atheist, go have it wherever you want. The government should be involved. You can do power of attorney and other social contracts such as prenups to cover the legal aspects of it. The beauty of this is, anyone can create a contract with anyone, and no one cares! It just has to pass contract law.

The government already infiltrates our lives through many means. If we as people can choose one thing in life, one thing that no one can intrude on, one thing the government should not touch, wouldn't that be love? Somehow that one thing has not only been made part of the system, and not only does everyone accept it mindlessly and sheepleshly, but people actually defend it vehemently to remain government regulated!!!

It is mind-boggling to me. Girls don't feel they are "married" unless the government gives them their blessing. It is insane. Girl says, "yes, I want you in me, but the government hasn't given us the ok yet". Sounds like a horror sci-fi big-brother scenario. I'm sorry but I rage every time this topic comes up. I'm amazed at how people are such lambs about such important matters.


Because the ordering of the reproductive sexes is of national interest.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

pat
Level 3

Join date: Oct 2002
Posts: 17575

BlakeAJackson wrote:
What I see going on is an attack on religious freedom. That including the notion of freedom from others religion. Our government should have never recognized marriage between anyone. There are however very real legal consequences for separation to which citizens turn to the courts.

Word.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report